Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact.

Background: At a time of growing emphasis on both the use of research and accountability, it is important for research funders, researchers and other stakeholders to monitor and evaluate the extent to which research contributes to better action for health, and find ways to enhance the likelihood that beneficial contributions are realized. Past attempts to assess research 'impact' struggle with operationalizing 'impact', identifying the users of research and attributing impact to research projects as source. In this article we describe Contribution Mapping, a novel approach to research monitoring and evaluation that aims to assess contributions instead of impacts. The approach focuses on processes and actors and systematically assesses anticipatory efforts that aim to enhance contributions, so-called alignment efforts. The approach is designed to be useful for both accountability purposes and for assisting in better employing research to contribute to better action for health.Methods: Contribution Mapping is inspired by a perspective from social studies of science on how research and knowledge utilization processes evolve. For each research project that is assessed, a three-phase process map is developed that includes the main actors, activities and alignment efforts during research formulation, production and knowledge extension (e.g. dissemination and utilization). The approach focuses on the actors involved in, or interacting with, a research project (the linked actors) and the most likely influential users, who are referred to as potential key users. In the first stage, the investigators of the assessed project are interviewed to develop a preliminary version of the process map and first estimation of research-related contributions. In the second stage, potential key-users and other informants are interviewed to trace, explore and triangulate possible contributions. In the third stage, the presence and role of alignment efforts is analyzed and the preliminary results are shared with relevant stakeholders for feedback and validation. After inconsistencies are clarified or described, the results are shared with stakeholders for learning, improvement and accountability purposes.Conclusion: Contribution Mapping provides an interesting alternative to existing methods that aim to assess research impact. The method is expected to be useful for research monitoring, single case studies, comparing multiple cases and indicating how research can better be employed to contribute to better action for health. © 2012 Kok and Schuit; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Performance assessment methodology demonstration : methodology development for evaluating compliance with EPA 40 CFR 191, Subpart B, for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant /

"SAND89-2027.""Printed December 1989.""Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories ... for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC04-76DP00789"--Cover."Sandia report."Cover title.Includes bibliographical references.Mode of access: Internet

What can Prudent Public Regulators Learn from the United Kingdom Government’s Nanotechnological Regulatory Activities?

This contribution discusses the United Kingdom (UK) government’s regulatory activities related to nanotechnological development. The central question is what other prudent public regulation can learn from the UK government’s regulatory strategy, its regulatory attitude and its large variety of regulatory measures. Other public regulators can learn from the interactive and integrative UK regulatory approach. They can also draw lessons from the critique on the UK government’s regulatory attitude and its problems to cope with specific nanotechnological challenges. These lessons are based on an evaluation of the UK government’s regulatory activities from the viewpoint of prudent regulation. The notion of responsive regulation, which provides basic ideas for the evaluation methodology, refers to a view on prudence that focuses on moral constitutional values. Interestingly, a similar view on prudence has been discussed in nanoethics

Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change: A critical survey of the literature

In this article, the use of the niche concept for explaining radical technical change is explored. Contributions of various strands of literatures are elaborated and systematized in a taxonomy. Radical change or technological discontinuity is defined as the establishment of a new sociotechnical regime. Sociotechnical regimes carry and store rules for how to produce, use and regulate specific technologies. They perform the task of genes and define the boundary between technological species. It is proposed that radical change is generated by four different evolutionary mechanisms and patterns: natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, market niche selection, and technological niche selection. In each pattern, a different type of niche is implicated in the change process. The difference between niches results from differentiating between two dimensions: (1) whether niches are internal or external to the prevailing sociotechnical regime; (2) whether rules for design and use of a specific technology are stable or unstable within the niche

Guerrilla warfare in the planning system: Revolutionary progress towards sustainability?

This article extends Qviström's (2007; Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89 (3): 269-282) ideas concerning "landscapes out of order" within a re-discovering and re-imagining of spatial planning theory and practice. Taking the viewpoint that planners and decision-makers order and manage space in prescribed and constrained ways, the article argues that this can hinder innovative practices which have the potential to deliver significant societal and environmental benefits. Using case studies from permaculture and guerrilla gardening, we illustrate how planning practice can be rooted in confrontation and legal challenge rather than with more positive and inclusive approaches, as is envisaged within spatial planning theory. Clearly, the ways in which such initiatives intersect with the planning system raise important questions about joined-up policy across scales and sectors, and the ability of planning to be a proactive vehicle of environmental and social change. Our findings confirm that spatial planning theory is largely "disintegrated" (Scott et al. 2013; Progress in Planning 83: 1-52) from much contemporary planning and environmental practice and wider discourses of sustainability. This suggests an urgent re-examination of the spirit and purpose of planning to embrace and promote the new even where they challenge established orthodoxy and planning order. © 2013 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography